On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 08:29:10PM -0500, Steve Halasz wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 15:12 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:51:18AM -0500, Steve Halasz wrote: > > > I believe qgis needs a BinNMU for bug 339254. > > A binNMU is not going to change the package name, which is what that bug > > requests. > > Apparently, there was no package name change for the *previous* C++ ABI > > change either. This is very problematic for partial upgrades from sarge and > > is also likely to affect partial upgrades *from* etch, which are both > > release-critical targets. Since qgis provides both shlibs for libqgis.so.0 > > and a -dev package, it seems clear that the intention is to allow packages > > to link against this library, in which case the lib must be handled > > according to Debian library policy. > > This probably means splitting libqgis0 out as a separate package. > qgis-dev was created in response to a bug mostly to help reduce the size > of the main package. All the plugins that use libqgis are part of the > qgis package. So although there is the possibility that in the future > there will be separate source packages building against qgis there are > none now and I don't expect any soon. It seemed simpler not to get into > library packaging if it wasn't necessary. But I agree that the -dev > package creates a certain expectation and I should probably bite the > bullet and create the libqgis0 package. Right; whether it's plugins or applications, if external packages are going to be dynamically linking to libqgis.so.0 (which is, presumably, why the shlibs are there), the rationale is the same. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature